Legal experience and professional development

Legal Experience

When I first entered the State Courthouse I immediately checked the bulletin boards to see what cases were being heard that day. However, not knowing the details from reading the list, I just chose a few by chance and decided to sit in and listen. I was surprised how many other observers there were in the courtrooms; I thought at first that people would look at me funny but no one minded my being there at all. The first hearing was one for the issuance of a search and seizure warrant by the police. Two uniformed officers were petitioning the judge to search someone's car and home, I believe. The second case I saw being tried was part of an actual misdemeanor trial. The defendant was accused of petty theft. Finally I briefly sat in on a traffic violation case. Although each of these cases was heard differently, involving different attorneys and different judges as well as different circumstances, I noticed several similarities in the general operations of the state courts. From my observation, I also learned about the different styles of being a lawyer as well as different styles of being a judge. Because I had no prior experience in court I didn't quite know what to expect. Having seen many courts in action on television or the movies I might have expected more glamour. In fact, the courts were much more casual than I thought. Proceedings tended to drag at times and the pacing was far slower than I imagined. Another of the main lessons I learned was that although court proceedings are formal, lawyers, judges, and bailiffs are simply performing their daily jobs: they are not invincible. However, these professionals do deserve respect and have a commanding aura about them. Among the key lessons I learned from my observations of the Georgia State Court system included court-specific communications and negotiations, and the logistics of the proceedings.

The search and seizure warrant hearing was particularly interesting because it wasn't an actual trial. The police officers had presented to the judge a folder or more of paperwork and evidence documenting the reasons for the petition. The judge was leafing through the folder material and would periodically look up at the cops and ask them questions. She would mainly ask for clarification of what was written, and wanted them to summarize certain items for her, probably to save time. The warrant was issued fairly quickly; the evidence must have been glaring because it didn't take the judge long to decide. From this experience I realized how difficult it can be for officers of the law to obtain warrants; it isn't simply a matter of asking their superiors and having them sign a quick note. I appreciated the fact that the judge was reviewing the evidence to make sure that a search warrant was necessary and did not constitute a violation of a citizen's right to privacy.

The misdemeanor trial was a lot different. The courtroom was fuller, of spectators and officials. It was also a larger room. I sat in the back and observed. The prosecuting attorney was speaking directly to the judge. This was not a jury trial. The attorney was standing and talking when I first entered. The entire time, during which I watched the trial, the prosecution was up. The attorney approached the judge with papers and evidence material several times but also interviewed two witnesses. One of the witnesses was cross-examined. The defendant was on trial for misdemeanor shoplifting. From this trial I learned several things about court proceedings, which flow in a logical manner. Lawyers have to be totally well-prepared and have to field questions from the judge on the fly, questions they probably hadn't anticipated. The court recorders and bailiffs also have to remain on the ball. Courts keep meticulous records of all the proceedings and it amazed me to think about how they store all the records and refer to them later.